Salt Lake City, UTAH, US: While speakers at the ninth World Congress of Families here chafed against the US Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex unions all over America, China announced the end of its one-child policy, which has been the bane of Chinese family life since 1987. Chinese families may now have two children each, according to the announcement, which was the highlight of an important Communist Party meeting, according to the New York Times.
The Times attributed China’s decision to fears that an aging population could jeopardize the country’s economic growth, which has made China the second strongest economy in the world after the United States, and a world economic power. Despite China’s population of 1.3 billion, the Xi Jinping government decided the country needs more young people to sustain its economic surge. A big portion of the population had begun to age, dropping out of the productive workforce, but remaining part of the “useless eaters.”
Additionally, gender-selective abortion in favor of the male, which was a distinct feature of the one-child policy, had created an oversupply of several million males without any corresponding supply of possible brides, with whom these males could found their own families.
The Chinese announcement constituted not only an official admission that the one-child policy was wrong. It also constituted an admission that population growth is not antithetical to progress, contrary to the old Malthusian lie which global population controllers have until now inflicted on developing countries like the Philippines.
Surprisingly, the Chinese failed to react with mass jubilation. According to the Times, the reaction was restrained. Those who have been led to believe that the one-child policy was good for them apparently did not know whether this was good news at all. This reminds me of the opening scene in Stanley Kramer’s 1969 film, “The Secret of Santa Vittoria,” in which the citizens of the wine-making Italian hill town of Santa Vittoria fail to show any reaction when an over-excited townsman rides in to break to them the great news that the fascist Mussolini had fallen; that he was gone forever.
If what one reads in the social media tells us anything, many Chinese men and women felt that raising a second child would simply be too expensive for them. Pro-life and pro-family workers elsewhere will understandably look at it as some kind of victory in their fight against the oppressive policy. But this is nothing but going back to the original target that sprang from the 1973 Kissinger Report, or National Security Study Memorandum 200, namely two children per family, worldwide, by the year 2000.
Now, regardless of the numbers, from one rising to two, the new policy does not correct the fundamental error at all. The Communist Party (or the state) remains in control of the intimate conjugal lives of couples, and that is what’s wrong with the whole thing. Like the Reproductive Health Law of President B. S. Aquino 3rd, it puts the government in control of the reproductive lives of the people, which belong exclusively and entirely to the couples.
But compared to what the US Supreme Court has done or wants to do to the family all over the United States, the Chinese seem to be a little more benign. Moving from one child to two children per family is certainly an improvement, even though the Communist Party still wants to be in charge. In the case of the June 26, 2015 US Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, five of nine justices decided, in their supreme majesty, to abolish fatherhood, motherhood, and children forever through same-sex marriage. This is the last word in population control, as I said in my address to the World Congress on Thursday.
Thus, in his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts laments: “The Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States, and orders the transformation (sic) of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?” It is a passage that reveals a deeply wounded heart and soul, in the face of the assault on the laws of God and the Constitution. But I write the word “sic” after the word “transformation” to suggest that it is the wrong word used—the Obergefell ruling, penned by liberal Justice Anthony Kennedy, does not “transform” marriage at all but “transmogrifies”—makes it ugly—instead.
As Cathy Cleaver Ruse, the senior counsel of the Family Research Council, pointed out in her brilliant presentation, the Kennedy ruling invalidated not just laws by state legislatures, but rather the sovereign decisions of the American people as manifested in various referendums. And as Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage told the Congress the law on marriage comes from God, and the Kennedy ruling did not change that law, but simply introduced a “lie” into it, which will eventually be purged out of it when the time comes. He cited the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which held that the Negro slave Dred Scott was not a person under the Constitution, but a piece of property belonging to its owner. This decision fueled the tensions that led to the Civil War and the abolition of slavery by President Lincoln.
Utah Governor Gary Herbert and Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, renowned American family historian and scholar and World Congress founder Allan Carlson, and various pastors led by Reverend Rafael Cruz, father of the Republican presidential aspirant Sen. Ted Cruz, led an array of distinguished Americans in pointing out the sanctity of marriage as the permanent union of one man and one woman. Africa was represented by a strong delegation led by the Nigerian Theresa Okafor, who was awarded Woman of the Year, and Bishop Emmanuel Badejo of Lagos. So were Europe and Latin America. My daughter Gabbie and I were the only ones from the Philippines, while there were a few more from Australia, India, and Korea.
Some 50 protesters showed up outside of the Grand America Hotel, where the Congress was being held under the chairmanship of Stan Swim of Sutherland Institute, assisted by one executive director, the well-known author and prolife worker Janice Shaw Crouse. They carried signs saying the Congress “spreads hate, not truth,” among others. The protesters stayed in the rain and failed to enter the hotel, so delegates did not notice the disturbance and merely read of it the next day in the local papers.
For the Obama administration, the Obergefell ruling is a major victory because of its known support for gay rights. TIME magazine has reported that on the night of June 26, 2015, they lit up the facade of the White House in the familiar colors of the gay-rights rainbow to celebrate the victory. Some Filipinos working in Salt Lake and California, who succeeded in gaining access to the Congress, worried that Obama might pressure the Philippines to adopt same-sex “marriage,” just as he had pressured Aquino into railroading the RH Law during their first meeting in the US, when he gave the latter a $454 million grant from the Millennium Challenge fund.
Obama is due to meet with Aquino during this month’s APEC Summit in the Philippines. Although Aquino’s term is ending on June 30 next year, he will likely want his candidate in the May 2016 presidential election to be seen as “the American candidate.” This has become even more likely after the UN tribunal at The Hague ruled last week that it has jurisdiction to arbitrate the maritime conflict between the Philippines and China, as sought by the Aquino government. As predicted from the very beginning, Beijing summarily rejected the ruling, saying it will neither participate in the process nor accept its results.
Ironically, while the Philippines needs American support in the internationalization of its maritime conflict with China—assuming the next government will not depart from Aquino’s stance—there is nothing to gain but harm, in adopting the US government position on family matters. It is to be hoped that Aquino, for once, will develop the courage to say “gay rights” are completely peripheral to the modernization and transformation of the Philippines. The American people, as distinguished from their government, which is now ruled by an extremely activist judiciary, are our best allies. The country should be able to find a leader who knows this distinction, and will give his all for it.
* * *
IN MEMORIAM. I join all relatives and friends, and the rest of our people, in mourning the untimely death of former Senator Ernesto “Boy” Herrera, an old comrade and friend at the Senate. He truly gave himself without any reservations in the service of his people, especially those of the working class. Beloved by the media, they celebrated his lifelong friendship with another friend, who had gone ahead of him, the late Blas F. Ople. They regularly met with the press every Thursday and supplied them with news stories enough to last for all of the next week. They called the duo endearingly as “Batman and Robin.” This would be a reunion with his bosom friend, but a much greater one is between Boy and his most merciful and loving Maker. May I ask the gentle reader to join me in my prayers for the peace and eternal happiness of this dear departed friend. Thank you very much.